When (not) to run Back to Basics | Blood Moon | Hall of Gemstone?

[Toshi]

So, here's my basic (hurr durr) question: When do you feel it is acceptable to run any of them?

Disclaimer: I think running any of these in low power pods would be an absolute d*ck move. I'm talking above average match-ups here.

To outline my thoughts: In my meta mono decks are somewhat common, yet in the minority. Every now and then, when one of the three hits the table, we end up having the same discussion.
I for one strongly believe, that running more colors (especially 4 and 5) should come with significant risks and potential downsides - aside from spending a lot more money on cards, MTG is P2W in a lot of ways already. Given the color fixing at this point i don't think the opportunity cost is anywhere close to a balance with its benefits.

Theoretically speaking, and have disenchants, has counterspells and bounce spells, has Feed the Swarm and has Chaos Warp, plus colorless options for all of them.
Hence, i consider all of them fair game to make up for the disadvantage of being in one color only.

Am i too harsh? Or do you agree, that greediness should get punished?
I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

Bonus question: Why on earth doesn't have a similiar card? Even has Contamination.

[Ruiner]

Outside of a super casual "beginners game" I think these are fair and don't hesitate to run Blood Moon and Magus of the Moon in any monored or most two color decks usually.

Like you said, stuff like this is good to keep greedy 4-5 color decks in check. Otherwise their main weakness mainly becomes a monetary one as far as their manabase is concerned (assuming proxies aren't allowed, not trying to deviate the discussion).

I always make sure to run a decent amount of basics in any 3 color deck I play to attempt to be able to alleviate the situation where I would run into this myself also.

[toctheyounger]

Honestly, my answer isn't really catered for in the poll.

I think they're fair game, in the right meta. That might not be top tier and it might not be casual, but could be anywhere in between. So, my answer is 'I think they're fair game in any meta that runs problematic and high powered lands'.

I guess that kind of covers optimised land bases with ABUR's and fetches and so forth, but stuff like Gaea's Cradle, Cabal Coffers, Field of the Dead, Glacial Chasm, Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and so forth too.

[Toshi]

Honestly, my answer isn't really catered for in the poll.

I think they're fair game, in the right meta. That might not be top tier and it might not be casual, but could be anywhere in between. So, my answer is 'I think they're fair game in any meta that runs problematic and high powered lands'.

I guess that kind of covers optimised land bases with ABUR's and fetches and so forth, but stuff like Gaea's Cradle, Cabal Coffers, Field of the Dead, Glacial Chasm, Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and so forth too.

I've added an option for that.
@Ruiner and i will have to vote again.

[toctheyounger]

Honestly, my answer isn't really catered for in the poll.

I think they're fair game, in the right meta. That might not be top tier and it might not be casual, but could be anywhere in between. So, my answer is 'I think they're fair game in any meta that runs problematic and high powered lands'.

I guess that kind of covers optimised land bases with ABUR's and fetches and so forth, but stuff like Gaea's Cradle, Cabal Coffers, Field of the Dead, Glacial Chasm, Valakut, the Molten Pinnacle and so forth too.

I've added an option for that.
@Ruiner and i will have to vote again.

And thus, my vote is cast.

[pokken]

I generally do not mind these cards because I try to build all my decks around them possibly showing up. I go pretty hard so I try to expect whatever and not be too bad a sport. Generally when people are not really building around using these effects (e.g. mono red blood moon that isn't actively tutoring for it all the time) it's just an occasionally hosing and that happens.

The main downside to these effects though, and why I do not personally run them, is that they are much more oppressive against bad manabases than good fetch manabases - I can fetch basics in most of my decks and I have a high basic count due to the high fetch count. Budget mana bases with lots of vivids and stuff get squashed by these really badly.

[DirkGently]

Blood moon I think is basically fair anywhere - the lower powered the table is, the less it's going to effect anyone's manabases since cheap manabases tend to be basic-heavy, and high-powered tables should be prepared for it.

B2B is a bit more annoying - blood moon has a minimal effect if most of your fixing comes from basics, but B2B can put a major dent in your mana even if you've only got 30% nonbasics or whatever. On the other hand, it's much easier to remove for a heavy-nonbasics deck. So I'd say it's a bit more dickish than BM, but still kind of acceptable anywhere since the effectiveness scales with the power of the table.

Also personally I think these cards are basically bad outside of mono-color since they pressure you to forgo a stronger manabase in order to make them work, and while you'll only draw nonbasic hate occasionally, your manabase will be important in every game. Not to mention the political ramifications. BM is fine in mono-red but otherwise I probably wouldn't play them.

I don't think hall of gemstone really fits with the others. It doesn't punish expensive manabases, it punishes multicolor cards and interaction. In particular, for anyone who isn't running artifact fixing, it's going to turn off their ability to cast their commander, which is definitely going to be "unfun" by the standards of most casual tables.

[RxPhantom]

I hate them but not enough to attempt enforcement of the social contract.

[Ulka]

Personally I run them all in various decks. I think they are fair game and if they hose another's deck it provides a learning opportunity for the other to learn that this is a possibility in games.

[BeneTleilax]

These are the natural answer to 3+ color goodstuff, which has gotten progressively more irksome in this format. Picking up a color should be a decision with costs, not just an easy power boost.

[Mookie]

I'm generally fine with all of these options - if you want to play a 3+ color deck, you should expect to face some consequences for doing so, and the payoffs for running more colors have risen over time disproportionately to the cost for doing so. I sort of wish I were running more monocolor decks to take advantage of them, but... such is life. I will note, as others have, that Back to Basics in particular is way more punishing against budget manabases due to how many of their lands enter tapped, which does sort of annoy me. That said, it's also the only one I'm currently running (due to Thada being my only monocolor deck).

I will note that I mind these cards significantly more if they're a surprise in a more casual meta. In a more cutthroat one, I can somewhat expect these to show up, and for people to be running answers to them... but when it's a surprise that I have no reason to play around, I'm going to be annoyed. Somewhat similar to MLD - if I know an opponent is running it, I can hold back lands or try to contain their board state, but it will hurt significantly more if I don't know to play around it.

White's closest equivalents are Archon of Emeria and Thalia, Heretic Cathar, which are.... significantly less oppressive. >.>

...I really wish WotC would print more CCC+ cards to promote decks with fewer colors.

[Treamayne]

I don't think hall of gemstone really fits with the others. It doesn't punish expensive manabases, it punishes multicolor cards and interaction. In particular, for anyone who isn't running artifact fixing, it's going to turn off their ability to cast their commander, which is definitely going to be "unfun" by the standards of most casual tables.

^This^

Hall of Gemstone is not in the same class as it affects all mana producing lands, and basically says "if you aren't mono-colored, you do not get to play." I hope to never see it again in this format; though I can see a case for treating like MLD (using it to prevent interrupting your WinCon, if you win the turn after you cast it then it's not quite as bad - at least it doesn't go into affect until the Upkeep after it is cast).

The others, it depends on the meta. If a meta really *needs* this level of control, and the group agrees, then have at it.

In random pick-up games, I would prefer to not see these outside 4+/4+ games (what might be a 9+ Game on the 10 point scale, but I really dislike the limitations of that scale). If you need nonbasic "answers," I would rather see things like Wave of Vitriol, From the Ashes, or even Volcanic Offering.

I also did not vote, as none of the options make distinctions between established groups and pick-up type games (like conventions and MTGO).

[umtiger]

Isn't Contamination better or "worse" than all of those?

Contamination says it doesn't matter if you play basics (blood moon/back to basics) or even mono color (hall of gemstone).

I second new more mono-color cards having 3+ devotion to incentivize less 3+ color decks.

[weltkrieg]

I don't think there is any particular problem with running any of these. They don't hose specific colors typically. My meta is all over the place from janky to CEDH levels of busted, so these sorts of cards are often needed. That said, if you draw it and it isn't needed, nothing says you have to cast it. I do note that hall of gemstone is a double edge sword. It hoses my opponents pretty well in my Yeva deck, but if I don't have a vernal bloom or similar out, it hoses me just as much. It is, however, a potential game ending lock for me so that is what I run it as. I would rather see these than a choke/boil effect which is very narrow but really powerful

[capitacommunist]

I'm fine with running any of these as they all have specific play arounds and are required to keep multicolored decks in check and provide answers to land decks (such as with the recent FOTD discussion). Back to Basics does hurt budget multicolor mana bases quite heavily (as they are heavy on taplands), so that one I may take out if I'm playing at a table with decks with that type of mana base.

[materpillar]

The main goal of these cards is to prevent your opponents from casting spells. I don't think that anything that attacks on that axis tends to create fun or interesting games for the person on the receiving end unless everyone is on the same page about it before the game starts.

Basically, my favorite part of magic is highly mana inefficient, 4-5 card combos that barely eek out any value. These cards massively punish my humorous durdle engines thus I don't want to see them ever.

The best example I have is that my changeling tribal The Ur-Dragon deck has 0 basics because I'm trying to jam as many on theme colorless utility lands into as I can (Elephant Graveyard, Mutavault, Contested Cliffs, etc). I could build my deck "better" to play around these things by streamlining my deck with better fixing mana-rocks, more basics, removing a bunch of utility lands but pushing my deck in that direction would just make it less neat and interesting overall. Someone can "punish" my deckbuilding choices very easily with any of these cards but they'd just be pushing the deck to more bland and flavorless.

If you and your meta-game like these cards than knock yourself out. I personally haven't ever seen one resolve and thought "well that'll make things more interesting"

[Dunharrow]

Contamination is possibly harder to deal with in many metas. I feel bad running it. But, I think it is fair.

Mind you, I also think MLD is fair, as long as the person casting the Armageddon is in a winning position.

[Cyberium]

When I play red I use Ruination, so I don't see why not.

At times I just can't understand some people's mentality. Ramping 7 mana by turn three, and I can't even punish you for overextension? Draw 2~3 cards a turn minimum, and I can't play Eidolon of Rhetoric to counter that? Hoarding counterspells in your hand, then criticize me for using Grand Abolisher? And I'm suppose to stop using Aven Mindcensor simply because you love to tutor?

The double standard in EDH is rich.

[3drinks]

I think these are great cards that are worth ensuring your mana base can handle the stress of them in any deck. And if someone can't handle them, that is an opportunity cost for them to look into addressing in the deck building stage.

[umtiger]

I think these are great cards that are worth ensuring your mana base can handle the stress of them in any deck. And if someone can't handle them, that is an opportunity cost for them to look into addressing in the deck building stage.

If only that was the go-to response for more people...

And not just as a response to these types of cards.

[materpillar]

I think these are great cards that are worth ensuring your mana base can handle the stress of them in any deck. And if someone can't handle them, that is an opportunity cost for them to look into addressing in the deck building stage.

The best example I have is that my changeling tribal The Ur-Dragon deck has 0 basics because I'm trying to jam as many on theme colorless utility lands into as I can (Elephant Graveyard, Mutavault, Contested Cliffs, etc). I could build my deck "better" to play around these things by streamlining my deck with better fixing mana-rocks, more basics, removing a bunch of utility lands but pushing my deck in that direction would just make it less neat and interesting overall. Someone can "punish" my deckbuilding choices very easily with any of these cards but they'd just be pushing the deck to more bland and flavorless.

[3drinks]

I think these are great cards that are worth ensuring your mana base can handle the stress of them in any deck. And if someone can't handle them, that is an opportunity cost for them to look into addressing in the deck building stage.

If only that was the go-to response for more people...

And not just as a response to these types of cards.

I'm a bit of a Magical unicorn, I know. 🤣

[3drinks]

I needed some time to compose myself and hopefully better articulate what I'm trying to say, so here goes that attempt.

I think these are great cards that are worth ensuring your mana base can handle the stress of them in any deck. And if someone can't handle them, that is an opportunity cost for them to look into addressing in the deck building stage.

The best example I have is that my changeling tribal The Ur-Dragon deck has 0 basics because I'm trying to jam as many on theme colorless utility lands into as I can (Elephant Graveyard, Mutavault, Contested Cliffs, etc). I could build my deck "better" to play around these things by streamlining my deck with better fixing mana-rocks, more basics, removing a bunch of utility lands but pushing my deck in that direction would just make it less neat and interesting overall. Someone can "punish" my deckbuilding choices very easily with any of these cards but they'd just be pushing the deck to more bland and flavorless.

This is what we call opportunity cost. No one is forcing you to increase your deck and protect your ability to cast spells. That's fine and you have that right. Creating an opportunity for improvement doesn't require sharing the same space of a Venn Diagram with actually making improvements. Now having said that, your fair and reasonable refusal to take such protective measures into practice does not invalidate the other players, because other players will play the greedy 3+ colour decks that cards like these are designed to reign in. What you've created for yourself then, is collateral damage for the sake of the greater good. And that's unfortunate - but it doesn't make the metagame decision to run these cards any less inappropriate or ill-favored. The metagame got to that point by a reason, and it's a bit unfair to expect players to not use such cards on your behalf, when the other players forced them to become warranted by their own pushing of the envelope.

[materpillar]

I needed some time to compose myself and hopefully better articulate what I'm trying to say, so here goes that attempt.

That's fair, I appreciate you spending extra time trying to frame things properly.

This is what we call opportunity cost. No one is forcing you to increase your deck and protect your ability to cast spells. That's fine and you have that right. Creating an opportunity for improvement doesn't require sharing the same space of a Venn Diagram with actually making improvements. Now having said that, your fair and reasonable refusal to take such protective measures into practice does not invalidate the other players, because other players will play the greedy 3+ colour decks that cards like these are designed to reign in. What you've created for yourself then, is collateral damage for the sake of the greater good. And that's unfortunate - but it doesn't make the metagame decision to run these cards any less inappropriate or ill-favored. The metagame got to that point by a reason, and it's a bit unfair to expect players to not use such cards on your behalf, when the other players forced them to become warranted by their own pushing of the envelope

I have a Chromium deck. I really enjoy casting Chromium and beating face with her. Her mana cost and upkeep cost are the definition of a greedy 3+ color deck. As average games of EDH continue their relentless slow climb in power level it becomes harder and harder to resolve Chromium let alone ever attack once, let alone actually kill someone with her. I want to cast an Elder Dragon while I'm playing re-skinned Elder Dragon Highlander, I'm not going to agree with letting that want be acceptable "collateral damage for the greater good".


Blood Moon and friends don't invalidate just people pushing the envelope, they can also invalidate those people who don't push the envelope. Playing Blood Moon isn't leading the crusade against degenerate EDH decks that push the envelope, it's joining the ranks of EDH decks that push the envelope. You're just pushing on a different axis of attack than over-tuned simic decks do. If you slap down a Blood Moon on turn 3 that's functionally identical to playing Demonic Consultation + Thassa's Oracle or Gaea's Cradle into Craterhoof Behemoth for me when I pilot my The Ur-Dragon deck. I could warp my deck building to make my deck more optimized and able to handle those cards too but, again, pushing my deck in those directions would just make it less neat and interesting overall. I don't think it's unfair of me at all to expect my opponents to not play cards that turn games into non-games.


Fighting optimization with more optimization isn't a way to reduce optimization in a metagame. You just get an arms race that pulls you towards cEDH. If metagames want to flirt with that arms race then more power to those people but I don't certainly don't. I'm definitely not going to stand in support of normalizing that slow pull of optimization.

[3drinks]

I have a Chromium deck. I really enjoy casting Chromium and beating face with her. Her mana cost and upkeep cost are the definition of a greedy 3+ color deck. As average games of EDH continue their relentless slow climb in power level it becomes harder and harder to resolve Chromium let alone ever attack once, let alone actually kill someone with her. I want to cast an Elder Dragon while I'm playing re-skinned Elder Dragon Highlander, I'm not going to agree with letting that want be acceptable "collateral damage for the greater good".

I appreciate this. I too once ran our dragon god ruler and supreme overlord Nicol bolas|leg. It was "just" Grixis control, and hitting you once with my big dumb dragon was my actual, genuine finisher since, turns out if I can deploy that with counter backup, this game was already over. I enjoyed it immensely (you might find it over on @mtgsally still), but at not one time did I ever envision a time doing so wasnt suboptimal. Never once did I find myself upset at players for sticking blood moons and hall of gemstone under me, or run away with a game via t2 sylvan library. At some point, one has to just accept that what they're doing is unoptimal, and accept losing to that if they don't wish to change. In my case, it was that or play more Annul effects to help shore up glaring weaknesses. Either choice is fine - what's immature, and short sighted is expecting other people to change their decks because of what hampers your deck. You start on mana denial cards, then what? Ramp gets you too far ahead of me so I need you to not play those. Can you remove creatures because I don't like being attacked. This is obviously some extreme hyperbole, but the sentiments stand.

Accept if a weakness leading to more game losses is worth the trade off of staying true to the theme, or if it's not acceptable and you want to add ways to mitigate said weaknesses. You saw in Trynn/Silvar my insistance to maintain all matching borders and frames (foolhardy as it is now with all the mass borderless and promo frames we have), but I accepted the risk and decided the matching aesthetics was worth more to me than the raw power creep we're getting now. Never would I insist others modify their decks to accommodate me - that's so unbelievably arrogant to even think. It's always better to ask yourself how you can fit to the table, rather than how the table can fit to you.

Fwiw all told I'd play against ya though. It's why I keep different decks with different aims, aesthetics, strategies, and even rarities around.